Ladmore v Ashton [2024] NSWSC 1298

Ladmore v Ashton [2024] NSWSC 1298

Leave to amend the statement of claim was refused because the proposed amendments would introduce inconsistencies, cause forensic disadvantage to the defendants at a late stage of the proceedings, and inflict prejudice in a manner contrary to the overriding purpose and dictates of justice under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). The plaintiffs had ample opportunity to plead their case and offered no adequate explanation for the delay.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Richard Barnes Ladmore; Second Plaintiff: Jan-Louise Ladmore; First Defendant: Joan Marie Ashton; Second Defendant: John Daniel Quinn
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings / Interlocutory Application During Trial
Outcome
Plaintiffs' application for leave to amend dismissed
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Amendment of Pleadings, Promissory Estoppel, Proprietary Estoppel, Breach of Contract, Late Amendment, Case Management
Civil Procedure Equity Real Property Pleadings Amendment of Pleadings Promissory Estoppel Proprietary Estoppel Breach of Contract +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Barnes Ladmore

First Plaintiff

Jan-Louise Ladmore

Second Plaintiff

Joan Marie Ashton

First Defendant

John Daniel Quinn

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings / Interlocutory Application During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to amend the pleadings at a late stage of the hearing
  2. 2 Whether proposed amendments introduce inconsistent or prejudicial claims
  3. 3 Whether the overriding purpose and dictates of justice under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) are met

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend the statement of claim was refused because the proposed amendments would introduce inconsistencies, cause forensic disadvantage to the defendants at a late stage of the proceedings, and inflict prejudice in a manner contrary to the overriding purpose and dictates of justice under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). The plaintiffs had ample opportunity to plead their case and offered no adequate explanation for the delay.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' application for leave to amend dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' application for leave to amend by filing a further amended statement of claim in the form of MFI6 is dismissed.